Subject: Re: 3 Lisps, 3 Ways of Specifying OS
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:53:16 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <3212769195955123@naggum.net>
* Rajappa Iyer
| On the contrary, Erik, you are the one that doesn't have a clue.
You admit to being vague because all this is two years old (what have I
been saying about your "experiences" and the dishonesty of using stale
painful experiences to _continue_ to post negative comments about
something?) and that you have no specific examples to back up your claim.
I already knew that, but it is good to see that you admit to this.
This leaves us with a very simple, straightforward conclusion: There is
absolutely no reason to believe anything you say. You are simply too
much of a dishonest person to have any credibility at all. Until and
unless you can show us exactly what you did and exactly what happened,
your whole set of experiences falls in the category of "idiot operator
error". Blame whoever you want, every honest person has to conclude that
it was your own goddamn fault. _No_ system can be so fool-proof that a
self-destructive, lying, angry fool cannot find something to blame it for.
Only good thing is it was a Linux and not a Common Lisp system that you
mistreated so badly that your hatred was misdirected towards Common Lisp.
There have been enough dishonest lunatics just like you who have been so
angry about their failure to understand what they are doing in Common
Lisp that they publish books about it. It is fortunate for Debian that
you are unlikely to be capable of such demanding intellectual endeavors.
///
--
Norway is now run by a priest from the fundamentalist Christian People's
Party, the fifth largest party representing one eighth of the electorate.
--
The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers. -- Richard Hamming